Kevin M. West Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray, examing two tires and an engine part.They also photographed them. Has anyone seen the FBI reports or photos. Or are they classified? Jack That is clearly not immediately after the crash. You can see that the buildings have already collapsed and the dust has settled before that picture was taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray, examing two tires and an engine part.They also photographed them. Has anyone seen the FBI reports or photos. Or are they classified? Jack That is clearly not immediately after the crash. You can see that the buildings have already collapsed and the dust has settled before that picture was taken. The FBI was there before either building collapsed, taking photos. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The FBI was immediately at Church and Murray, examing two tires and an engine part.They also photographed them. Has anyone seen the FBI reports or photos. Or are they classified? Jack That is clearly not immediately after the crash. You can see that the buildings have already collapsed and the dust has settled before that picture was taken. The FBI was there before either building collapsed, taking photos. Jack Jack each successive “study” of yours gets more bizarre “The purported photo…has no dust from the collapsed building indicating the FBI was on the scene talking photos immediately” Jack you do know there was a 56 minute interval between the South Tower being struck and it collapsing? So you claim “the FBI was there immediately” is completely unfounded. But yes the still was presumably taken between 9:03 and 9:59. But since the FBI office was only a 1 – 2 minute drive away this doesn’t prove anything. “Other photos show the part only waist high” In the “waist high” shot the camera is pointed up from a low angle making more distant items seem taller the part seems to be a little taller than the man’s waist In the "FBI agent" photo the camera is pointed down having the opposite effect. The agent seems to be leaning over. We can not discount the possibility the agent was shorter than the other man. An image posted by you on the previous page of this thread shows the part alongside a walk/don’t walk sign the part appears to be 50% the height of the top of the sign thus roughly 4 feet tall or about chest high for a man slightly bent over especially if he’s on the short side. And Jack if that photo was PhotoShopped there goes your evidence the FBI was there before the South Tower collapsed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 ... Much too small to have been the main engines of a 757. Likely planted evidence or some engine part from something other. No, completely wrong. The engine has been involved in a major impact; its dimensions would easily change. Here is a good example - an F-101 Voodoo with a J57 engine. Here is a picture of a J57: Now have a look at the remains of the engine at the F-101 crash site: (Images courtesy of the Peak District Air Accident Research group) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Another one, this time an F-86 Sabre with a J47 engine. The J47: The remains at the crash site: (Images courtesy of Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 (edited) ... I find it surprising that a self declared photo-analyst such as you seems not to understand one of the basic principles of perspective. As one’s vantage point moves up or down items in the background move up and down relative to items in the foreground. Thus a in photo of 2 objects shot from a high angle the one in the foreground would appear shorter compared to the background than when the same 2 objects were shot from a low angle. In the images Jack posted there were a number of differences, camera angle (horizontal and vertical), distance and the position of the 2 men etc. To simplify things in my 2 images there is only one difference, vertical camera angle. I did not change the position of the can of shaving cream (my stand-in for the engine part) or statue (my stand-in for the men) or focal length of the camera which was mounted on a tripod which wasn’t moved either. The 1st photo approximates the “waist high” photo. The can of shaving cream appears to as high as the accordion player’s wrist. The 2nd photo approximates the angle of the “FBI agent” photo. Though neither object moved the can of shaving cream appears to be as high as the top of the accordion player’s shoulder. Jack would tell us this means the statue managed to shrink dramatically in the few seconds between shots, but anyone can reproduce this right where they are, look at the top of your computer monitor, move your head up or down and observe its position relative to the wall or whatever is behind it. Jack can you explain to us the provenance of the photo with the FBI agent? You do realize that IF the photo is fake you have no evidence the FBI got there before the towers collapsed? Can you explain why if they went to all the trouble to plant a fake part and their office was a minute away why they would PhotoShop in an agent who presumably wasn’t there? One more question, in several photos and videos of the south tower crash one or two or three (depending on resolution) things can seen to be ejected from that building in the general direction of Curch and Murray streets, what do you think those items were? Edited May 8, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 ... Much too small to have been the main engines of a 757. Likely planted evidence or some engine part from something other. No, completely wrong. The engine has been involved in a major impact; its dimensions would easily change. Here is a good example - an F-101 Voodoo with a J57 engine. Here is a picture of a J57: Peter is not one to let a little thing like complete ignorance of the subject matter disuade him from offering his "expert" opinion. Funny thing the vast majority of the truth movement rejects no plane/plane swap theories for the WTC. The subject is verbotten on the Loose Change forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH Richard Gage, AIA, Architect www.ae911truth.org May 12, 2008 Dear Honored Citizen(s): You are invited to attend a forum at MIT concerning the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11. I am the founder of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which is a fast-growing collaboration of more than 350 architectural and engineering professionals. The last few years have witnessed the emergence of mounting scientific evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not adequately explained by the official theories outlined in the 2002 FEMA and 2005 NIST reports. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth call for a new, fully funded unimpeachable Congressional investigation with subpoena power. We are dedicated to presenting the evidence that supports our call in this comprehensive presentation. What the Evidence Shows Sounds of explosions coming from each of the WTC Twin Towers were heard well before the collapses began. These were reported by over 118 first responders in the FDNY recorded “oral histories” (the release of which was resisted by the City of NY until forced by a New York Times FOIA filing).Numerous accounts of “flashes of light” which commonly accompany the detonation of demolition charges were also reported. Video footage reveals the striking symmetry, explosiveness and rapidity of the Towers’ destruction.This destruction differed from the more classic controlled demolition of WTC 7 in its extreme explosiveness. Each rubble site contained tons of molten metal “flowing like lava” in the basements – as observed by Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer, and numerous other first responders. The temperatures of these flows were far in excess of anything possible from a jet fuel fire or from the burning contents of the buildings. Scientists have determined conclusively that thermate – a high-tech incendiary - was used. Chemical traces of thermate were found in the steel and dust. Each “collapse” exhibited thick billowing pyroclastic dust clouds that rapidly expanded to over ten times the volume of the buildings.Each also showed squibs (explosive ejections of pulverized building materials) easily observed in many of the videos. The twin towers were explained to have “pancaked” down, however there was no stack of floors found at the bottom – nearly everything was blown outside the footprint of the towers in a symmetrical pattern extending 1,200 feet in diameter around each building – and 90,000 tons of concrete , metal decking and floor trusses were completely missing from the debris field. Most damaging to the official story, WTC building 7 was a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane and yet became the 3rd modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically at near free-fall speed on 9/11 – in the exact manner of a controlled demolition with explosives. It collapsed into a neat, compact pile, exhibiting ALL the classic features of controlled demolition: Rapid onset of “collapse” Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at near free-fall speed (i.e. the [core] columns offered no resistance) “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds Tons of molten metal found in basement by demolition workers Chemical signature of thermate (a high-tech incendiary) found in slag and dust samples Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting found (by FEMA) in the structural steel samples Expert corroboration from controlled demolition professionals Foreknowledge of “collapse” by First Responders, media, NYPD, FDNY, etc. You can review all of this evidence and much more online atwww.AE911Truth.org. Thank you - we look forward to meeting you at the forum! Sincerely, Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Could the flimsy sign stop the momentum of the flying engine? How could the sign and engine fall inside and underneath the scaffolding? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please. I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed). Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene? If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed). Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene? If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please. The sign was about 16 feet in the air. You tell us how it got there. Facts please. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed). Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene? If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please. The sign was about 16 feet in the air. You tell us how it got there. Facts please. Jack No, sorry Jack, but you are the one who is claiming there is something wrong. It is up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong. You have to show where it is stated that the sign was hit by the engine, why it could not of been hit by debris, etc. You have the burden of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed). Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene? If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please. The sign was about 16 feet in the air. You tell us how it got there. Facts please. Jack No, sorry Jack, but you are the one who is claiming there is something wrong. It is up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong. You have to show where it is stated that the sign was hit by the engine, why it could not of been hit by debris, etc. You have the burden of proof. And you stated it was knocked there by persons fleeing the scene. From 16 feet in the air? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 And you stated it was knocked there by persons fleeing the scene. From 16 feet in the air?Jack Incorrect yet again, Jack. I asked why - working under the premise you are wrong - why it could not have been possible for that to happen. I did not state it as fact. I simply asked you why that could not be an explanation. Where has it been claimed that the engine hit the sign? From the official report, or other official source, please.I don't believe it says that anywhere (though I may well be wrong... if shown a quote, etc, of where it was claimed). Working under the premise that the engine did not bring down the street sign, is it not possible that other debris from the area hit the sign? Could the sign not have been kicked / thrown / knocked there by persons fleeing the scene? If not, why not? Again, clear evidence of why it would not be possible, please. Please do not put words into my mouth. Can you prove that it was knocked there by the engine? If not, can you positively discount that it was not knocked there by people fleeing the scene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now